instructions or prescribe solutions; rather they are intended to spark ideas, stimulate discussion, and ...... flexibili
LEADERSHIP SERIES
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS A New Model for Impact by Melissa Berman, Ph.D. Dara Major Jason Franklin, Ph.D.
In partnership with
This paper was written by Melissa Berman, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and Dara Major, independent consultant, who synthesized the research of the Theory of the Foundation initiative and conducted additional interviews to unpack and illustrate core concepts. This paper is based on an original series of Theory of the Foundation white papers by Melissa Berman and informed by additional contributions from Jason Franklin, Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University. It was edited by Jen Bokoff and Erin Nylen-Wysocki, Foundation Center. It was designed by Betty Saronson, Foundation Center. Funding for this paper was generously provided to Foundation Center by the donors to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ Theory of the Foundation initiative (see p. 26 for a complete list of funders). This paper is part of the GrantCraft Leadership Series. Resources in this series are not meant to give instructions or prescribe solutions; rather they are intended to spark ideas, stimulate discussion, and suggest possibilities. Look for these icons to explore more content:
GrantCraft Connection
Podcast
To access this paper and other resources, please visit grantcraft.org. You are welcome to excerpt, copy, or quote from this paper with attribution to GrantCraft and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and inclusion of the copyright. For more information, e-mail GrantCraft at
[email protected]. ©2017 Foundation Center and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Unported License creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Table of Contents 5
Introduction to the Theory of the Foundation Framework Philanthropy is changing and evolving more quickly than ever, with new societal challenges, new players, and new strategies. In this time of change, questions of how foundations can optimize their effectiveness are increasingly urgent. We provide a simple overview of the Theory of the Foundation, some of its benefits, and a roadmap for funders interested in exploring their own foundations’ frameworks.
10 Charter What is a foundation’s form of governance, how will it make decisions—and why? In this chapter, we discuss a foundation’s charter, which describes the foundation’s scope, form of governance, and decision-making protocol at the highest level, based on written and unwritten rules.
14 Social Compact To whom is a foundation accountable, and how is it making a difference with the special status it has been given? In this chapter we illuminate a foundation’s social compact, which is an agreement, either implicit or explicit, with society and key stakeholders.
17 Operating Capabilities What must a foundation not just do or obtain, but excel at in order to achieve its mission? In this chapter, we explore a foundation’s operating capabilities, which are the dominant approaches that guide how the foundation carries out its work and the core competencies, resources, skills, and processes that it cultivates in order to achieve results.
22 Takeaways for Funders In this final section, we make the case for examining foundation frameworks and offer useful tools to help you begin to put these ideas into practice today.
25 Philanthropy Canvas Worksheet
About This Paper WHY THIS PAPER?
WHO ARE THE AUTHORS?
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) developed the
GrantCraft developed this paper in partnership with RPA.
Theory of the Foundation framework to stimulate discussion
Based on two reports for Theory of the Foundation initiative
of foundations as organizations at a time when philanthropy
funders written by Melissa Berman, president of RPA, this
is changing and evolving more quickly than ever, with new
paper updates and expands on the original research. For this
societal challenges, new players, and new strategies. The
paper, we synthesized and drew substantially from initiative
inspiration was iconic management expert Peter F. Drucker,
publications and tools, reviewed additional organizational
who, over 20 years ago, called on organizational leaders
theory literature, and conducted 10 original interviews with
to develop a “theory of the business” by considering three
a diverse set of funders in the United States and Europe.
fundamental sets of assumptions: environment, mission, and
The paper also draws on extensive interviews, symposia,
core competencies. For a theory to be valid, Drucker argued,
and literature reviews conducted independently by RPA in
its assumptions must be valid, congruent, widely understood,
two phases, engaging foundation leaders in Europe and
and regularly assessed. RPA's key insight was that the
the US. Dozens of foundations provided financial support,
absence of such a theory in philanthropy leads to blind spots
ideas, and analysis that have informed all aspects of this
and underperformance at both the organizational and sector
work. Additional research was conducted in partnership with
levels. To address this, over several years and
the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand
with dozens of foundation partners, RPA developed the
Valley State University and with the Marshall Institute for
Theory of the Foundation. RPA’s approach does not aim
Philanthropy and Social Entrepreneurship at the London
to develop one theory for all foundations but instead to
School of Economics, and by Dara Major, who conducted
create a framework that enables an individual foundation to
original interviews with funders for this paper.
surface its underlying core beliefs and align its purpose and operations in pursuit of public benefit.
Melissa Berman, Ph.D., is the founding president and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc., an innovative
HOW CAN I USE THIS AS A RESOURCE?
nonprofit philanthropy service launched by the Rockefeller
This resource provides clear, practical guidance for funders
thoughtful, effective philanthropy throughout the world.
looking to examine their organizational structures and
Learn more about RPA at rockpa.org and follow
strategize about their capacities and operations through
@MBermanRPA on Twitter.
family in 2002. RPA’s mission is to help donors create
discussion questions, action steps, and lessons from peers. It is intended to provide an accessible and actionable
Dara Major is an independent strategy and management
introduction of RPA’s Theory of the Foundation to a global
consultant, helping clients to meaningfully align resources
funder audience.
for results—at the individual, organizational, and field levels. With over two decades of leadership experience in
WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?
philanthropy, she works with a diverse range of philanthropic
To learn more about the Theory of the Foundation initiative
on the philanthropic sector; for more information visit
and key foundation partners, as well as to access RPA’s full complement of publications and tools on this topic, please visit TheoryoftheFoundation.org. For more information, contact
[email protected]. GrantCraft, a service of Foundation Center, offers resources to help funders be more strategic about their work, and has published this paper as part of its leadership collection to encourage a conversation about this topic. Explore GrantCraft’s resources at grantcraft.org and on Twitter by following @grantcraft. Other services and tools that Foundation Center offers can be accessed at foundationcenter.org.
and social sector organizations. Dara Major has written widely daramajor.com, contact
[email protected], and follow Dara on Twitter @DaraMajor. Jason Franklin, Ph.D., is the W.K. Kellogg Community Philanthropy Chair at the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University. As the holder of the nation’s first endowed chair focused on community philanthropy, Dr. Franklin engages in research, teaching, service, and thought leadership to explore and advance the field of community philanthropy, nationally and internationally.
Introduction to the Theory of the Foundation Framework Philanthropy is changing and evolving more quickly than ever, with new societal challenges, new players, and new strategies. In this time of change, questions of how foundations can optimize their effectiveness for the public good are increasingly urgent—and the ability to self-reflect or even be introspective on an organizational level is critical. The Theory of the Foundation offers a framework for
Operating Capabilities: These are the
introspection that enables foundations to address
dominant approaches that guide how a foundation
urgent questions, explore fundamental beliefs or implicit
carries out its work and the core competencies,
assumptions about their work, and more effectively align
resources, skills, and processes that it cultivates in order
foundation purpose, public benefit, and action. And, while
to achieve results. Operating capabilities encompass
theory gives us a way to think, this paper offers pragmatic
financial and non-financial assets, talent and knowledge
ways to use the framework to inform everyday practice.
development, internal and external collaboration, and organizational structure.
Fundamentally, the Theory of the Foundation framework is composed of three core elements—charter, social
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) embarked on a
compact, and operating capabilities—that together inform
multiyear program of collaborative research with dozens
a foundation’s structure and approach.
of funders in the United States and Europe to uncover and
Charter: The charter is a foundation’s scope, form of
distill these elements into a conceptual framework— a Theory of the Foundation—to help private foundations
governance, and decision-making protocol at the highest
align resources more effectively for the impact they
level, and the precursor to mission. Charter encompasses
envision. In this GrantCraft paper, we’re laying out this
origin stories, board composition, where and how
important research to help funders of all kinds to reflect on
decisions are made, values, issue focus, and culture.
foundation theory and strengthen philanthropic practice.
It has both written and unwritten elements.
Social Compact: Social compact is a foundation’s reciprocal agreement, either implicit or explicit, with society and key stakeholders about the specific value it will create. It underpins
CHARTER
SOCIAL COMPACT
how the foundation defines its legitimacy and license to operate, and the actions considered “appropriate” to undertake. Social compact encompasses partner relationships, external accountabilities, relationship to
OPERATING CAPABILITIES
society and government, and transparency.
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
5
As in any line of work, it is important to periodically
built, one by one, new research institutions in resource-
pause and reflect on why and how we do what we do.
scarce countries—and then, over a period of 60 years,
For example, the long-tenured chief administrator of a
funded basic and applied agricultural research across
top-rated hospital might be working purposefully toward
this network. Athough some of this work had unintended
a clear mission, yet make a point to routinely consider
negative environmental consequences, their efforts
the hospital’s underlying theory: why it exists, how it
resulted in extraordinary increases in crop yields and a
relates to its customers and partners, and what it can do
global science, production, and distribution ecosystem that
organizationally to enable continual advances in medicine
saved the lives of at least a billion people around the world.
and deliver the best possible care. Similarly, funders who pause to reflect on the theories that shape their
Today’s foundations face different starting points,
foundations will be better able to focus their work and
challenges, and opportunities. Knowledge, capacity, and
deliver the best possible results.
resources are fragmented rather than concentrated as over 100,000 U.S. foundations and 1.5 million nonprofits now work across a highly developed, multi-sector
“It’s an unnatural act to work across silos. It requires constant attention, reinforcement of behavioral norms, and intentionality about the culture we try to build.” Will Miller, The Wallace Foundation
constellation of institutions, fields, and networks. Collaboration at scale has become both possible, given this rich supply of external capacity, and increasingly feasible, as our collective imagination and adaptive capacity begin to catch up to game-changing advances in technology. At the same time, inequality and a loss of trust in major societal institutions are on the rise globally, while humanitarian crises and a strained public sector raise questions about the purpose and role of foundations. Though many foundations remain structured according to the operating realities of the past, foundation leaders
While other GrantCraft resources focus on a particular
are increasingly questioning their future as sectoral
aspect of or approach to grantmaking, this paper addresses
boundaries blur. Newer philanthropic approaches—such as
the underlying framework of organizational dynamics that
community-based decision making, capital aggregation, and
shape them. It is particularly intended for use by leaders of
major grantmaking through philanthropic spend-downs—
private, endowed foundations. However, it will also serve
are challenging philanthropic norms and talent-sourcing,
as a useful reflection tool for leaders of community, public,
investment, and centralized decision-making models. The
and corporate foundations, though different dynamics
private sector is making significant “double bottom-line”
come into play for different foundation types.
investments in social solutions (and exerting a growing influence on agenda setting for the common good) while
NEW OPERATING CONTEXTS
foundations begin to imagine what investing 100 percent
When the earliest foundations formed over 100 years ago,
For example, as foundations respond to changing dynamics,
the external operating landscape was remarkably different.
of their assets for social return and impact might look like.
There were few well-established nonprofit organizations to work with, and fewer still that had the capacity to operate or even collaborate at scale. For foundations looking to have an impact in a specific area, the first step was often to hire, design, and then create the capacity needed to execute—a process that could take years. For instance, to address global inequities that led to food shortages and the prospect of mass starvation, the
GrantCraft Connection Check out GrantCraft’s Funding Innovation blog series, produced in partnership with Glasspockets and the Vodafone Foundation, which explores new funding practices and philanthropic trends at the intersection of problem solving, technology, and design.
Rockefeller and Ford foundations and other partners first
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
6
many are seeking to create new value by integrating current foundation capabilities across programs and functions, including knowledge management and communications. Yet as Wallace Foundation president Will Miller notes, “It’s an unnatural act to work across silos. It requires constant attention, reinforcement of behavioral norms, and intentionality about the culture we try to build.” This integration function is increasingly being
A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR REFLECTION As foundations evolve the ways in which they reflect and make decisions, there’s a rich body of knowledge to draw from, grounded in other sectors and in the wider world of organizational theory. With over 100 years of philanthropic practice to reference, there are also critical lessons to be learned from within philanthropy.
staffed, at the senior leadership team level, with talent from other industries, such as finance, consulting, and general management. In all sectors, traditional, mechanistic organization and management forms are beginning to shift to more organic, network-based approaches. These shifts are prompting many foundation leaders to actively re-examine traditional or long-held philanthropic assumptions, frameworks, and models and cultures to ensure that today’s foundations deliver results that are greater than just the sum of their grants. This level of introspection requires a deep awareness and shared understanding of the critical elements that underpin the foundation—how it makes decisions (charter), how it
“We’re not just responsible to the people that gave us those resources to begin with; we must also consider the kind of change we’re trying to effect, and how we involve the very people who are going to be affected by every move we make.” Katy Love, Wikimedia Foundation
sees itself interacting with others (social compact), and how it chooses to deploy resources (operating capabilities)— and ensures that people inside the foundation are aligned around a common understanding. This common understanding is key to a foundation’s culture and is a powerful motivator and enabler of essential behaviors. Ford Foundation president Darren Walker notes, “The Theory of the Foundation is an exciting idea and an important framework for bringing more rigor and a depth of analysis to understanding philanthropy’s role.”
Why take a fresh look at your foundation’s theory? Click here to hear more from the authors on the external landscape changes that are prompting many foundation leaders to actively re-examine traditional or long-held philanthropic assumptions, frameworks, and models—and how the Theory of the Foundation can help to ensure that today’s foundations deliver results that are greater than
RPA was inspired to develop the Theory of the Foundation after reflecting on Peter Drucker’s seminal work on the “theory of the business”—which called upon business leaders to regularly assess and adjust their business models and fundamental beliefs or assumptions in response to changing conditions. These theories and models have, at different times and to varying degrees, influenced philanthropic practice. Compelling as they are, however,
GrantCraft Connection Read and use Lucy Bernholz’s Blueprint series—an overview of the current philanthropic landscape, major trends, and horizons where you can expect some important breakthroughs each year— to open conversations about the context for your work and expanding your strategic framework.
just the sum of their grants.
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
7
they don’t capture the distinct nature of a foundation,
We hope the framework and tools presented here
whose mission goes beyond its own performance to
encourage funders in start-up and well-established
reach a broader public. Foundations demand more than
foundations alike to reflect on their work and to
just adaptation from other sectors; to fully realize their
envision and implement more effective strategies for
potential, they demand distinct consideration.
the 21st century.
The Theory of the Foundation framework and related tools will be useful for funders of all kinds and at all levels
GrantCraft Connection
of leadership. They are particularly intended for use by
What can we learn from grantmaking
leaders of private, endowed foundations to strengthen
practices and new operating realities in the public
decision making and resource allocation—individually,
sector? Read the Leadership Series paper,
with their boards and staff, and collaboratively, with
Innovations in Open Grantmaking, produced in
foundations and other partners.
partnership with the GovLab, which seeks to provide inspiration and early proof of concept regarding
Leaders of community, public, and corporate foundations
innovative practices at every stage of the grantmaking
can use the framework to consider their approaches, even
process within various U.S. government agencies.
as different dynamics come into play for funders that are connected to a corporation or actively raise funds.
Questions to Consider l
l
Reflect on a foundation that was established
l
To what extent, if any, is your foundation’s
before you were born. What are its notable
current approach rooted in the experiences
characteristics?
or operating environment of its past?
Think next about a foundation just starting up today. What do you think would be different about it? Why?
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
8
Core Framework
Charter
Operating Capabilities
GOVERNANCE
The foundation’s scope, form of governance, and decision-making protocol
Dominant approaches that guide how a foundation carries out its work
DECISION MAKING
DECISION MAKING
RESOURCING
FLEXIBILITY
VALUES INITIATIVE COMMITMENTS PRINCIPLES & CULTURE
PROGRAMMING
MISSION & PURPOSE
RELATIONSHIPS STAKEHOLDERS COMMUNICATION TRANSPARENCY
RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY SCOPE
ACCOUNTABILITY
EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS
Social Compact Implicit or explicit agreement with society on the value the foundation will create
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
9
Charter A foundation’s charter answers the question: What is a foundation’s form of governance, how will it make decisions—and why?
A charter defines and describes a foundation’s scope, form
Subsequent stewards may revamp a foundation’s
of governance, and decision-making protocol at the highest
charter based on what they observe; others may view
level. The charter is the precursor to mission, and shapes
a foundation’s formal, written charter as a mandate to
and is informed by the organization’s culture. It is a mix
honor forever. For some foundations, the charter captures
of formal, written elements (such as founding documents,
what the donor is committed to, which may change
statements of intent, and legacy letters) and informal, less
over time. It may describe areas of activity (such as the
tangible ones (such as culture, style, and tradition), and
arts, Cleveland, or children) or a set of cultural values
may encompass what is explicit from the founder as well
(such as a commitment to excellence or to the Alaskan
as the commitments and choices of subsequent stewards
outdoors). It may address traditional elements of mission,
(including boards, CEOs, and senior leadership). A charter
communicating intention and direction, but may also go
may be fairly open and flexible, or heavily prescribed.
beyond that to describe the foundation’s values and culture.
Philanthropy typically distinguishes private foundations
The elements of the charter, from written founding
by whether they are family or independent, implicitly
documents to unwritten culture or style, define how a
recognizing that governance and the role of the donor
foundation makes fundamental decisions—and, perhaps
or their descendants play a major role in the structure
more importantly what decisions it cannot make. For
of a foundation; in the Theory of the Foundation, these
instance, Rasmuson Foundation’s charter and unwritten
differences are considered central.
culture guide its fundamental decisions. The foundation was started by a family with a desire to create a vibrant
Origin stories are typically the basis of a foundation’s
economy to support Alaska’s families. They chose to invest
charter and act as a reference point and a source of
heavily in the development of Alaska’s natural resources;
inspiration. For example, Rasmuson Foundation was
for this reason, subsequent stewards may be reluctant to
founded by missionaries of the Swedish Covenant Church.
invest in certain environmental advocacy that would limit
Jenny Olson and E.A. Rasmuson came to the small Tlingit
economic opportunities for Alaskans.
Indian village of Yakutat, Alaska separately, met, and married. Later, the couple took on the leadership of a
At any given moment in a foundation’s life cycle, a
struggling local bank, which became a force for progress
foundation’s charter will be at some point along a
as Alaska’s largest statewide financial institution. Today,
continuum that reflects the relative influence and control
this family foundation, established in 1955, continues
of the foundation’s founding donor(s). Some foundations
to honor its founders’ commitment to Alaska’s future
may stay firmly at one point along this continuum
through programs related to quality health care, economic
permanently, while others may shift positions on this
opportunity, vibrant arts, and educational opportunity.
continuum over time.
Origin stories such as this one often have an enduring power over a foundation; even when the donor’s intent is broad and the legal obligations are few, a foundation’s origin continues to shape practice throughout a foundation’s life cycle.
GrantCraft Connection Read this blog post about how the Weissberg Foundation used an unconventional method to help articulate and come to a consensus around their core values.
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
10
Donor-led
CHARTER CONTINUUM Stewarded Connected
DONOR-LED: A living donor(s) sets mission, priorities, allocation of resources, and forms of engagement; living donors are actively engaged in leading the foundation and these components may change as the thinking of the donor(s) evolves. Some examples include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Simons Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. For donor-led foundations, the charter serves as a blueprint
Open
and leaders operate within the founder’s framework, again by law or through a powerful tradition. They see themselves as stewards and guardians of the founder-determined foundation. Some examples include Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, Robert Bosch Stiftung, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and The California Wellness Foundation, a health-conversion foundation.
CONNECTED: The successors—whether family members
for successive generations to follow. Laura Arrillaga-
or not—of the founder(s) are not tightly constrained by the
Andreessen, founder and president of Laura Arrillaga-
founder’s vision or priorities, but to varying degrees they still
Andreessen Foundation, notes: “The more narrow, evolved,
look to the founder(s) vision, preferences, and approach to
and specific the founding mission, strategy, grantmaking, and
inform their decisions. This may have happened intentionally
operating principles are, the greater the chance the donor
with a shift from donor-led to connected, or gradually over
intent will be honored. It’s not going to be honored if nobody
time from a stewarded to a less donor-oriented connected
knows what it is.”
style. Trustees of a foundation with a connected charter see themselves as interpreters of tradition whose continuity is
The charter can also serve as an important guide for other
important, but whose expression (in terms of issue area,
types of foundations. For example, community and company-
approach, involvement, and other factors) can evolve. Some
sponsored foundations have their own charters—and also
examples include Surdna Foundation, The Wallace Foundation,
work with a range of individual, family, and corporate donors
and The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
to establish endowments or contribute funds. Jarrett Lucas, executive director of Stonewall Community Foundation,
For example, at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, program officer
reflects on the foundation’s charter in this way: “Stonewall
Arelis Diaz notes that, “Our founder, Will Keith Kellogg, is still
was founded as response to the tragedy of the AIDS epidemic
a really large part of our DNA and his legacy and values are
in the late 1980s, to create a space where our donors could
still embedded in our foundation’s thinking. That definitely
turn loss into legacy. Our founding ethos remains: being
is something we remain very much connected to, at the staff
responsive, imagining alternatives to loss, fostering a culture of
and board levels. Mr. Kellogg is quoted quite often; his insight
philanthropy among LGBTQ people. Most donors to Stonewall
still drives our theory of change and our frameworks for
are of the community that we serve, which really sets us
action. We focus on racial equity, community engagement,
apart.” Conversely, Newman’s Own, Inc., a food and beverage
and leadership—issues that are still very much aligned to his
company, and its sole owner, Newman’s Own Foundation, carry
original purpose.” Generations later, the foundation continues
on Paul Newman’s commitment to use all the money it receives
to look to and interpret the founder’s vision.
from product sales for charitable purposes. Bob Forrester, president and chief executive officer of Newman’s Own Foundation, notes, “While our charter creates an unusual kind of tension within the organization, it’s a constructive tension because we need to go out and earn our money every day like
OPEN: Board members are empowered to select the foundation’s areas of activity and types of engagements based on their collective assessments of external forces and the foundation’s capacity. Their decision making is not constrained
any other business in a competitive environment.”
by how the founder might have reacted, nor do they to adhere
STEWARDED: Though the donor(s) no longer lives or is
may view that tradition as a strategic advantage that should not
to a traditional area of work for the sake of continuity. They
no longer involved with the foundation, the donor’s decisions
be readily abandoned, but that decision reflects an objective
and intentions continue to shape the foundation’s mission,
assessment of a resource, not a legally required or value-based
program areas, and approach. This can happen in formal, legally binding ways through governing documents, or informally through custom and culture. Subsequent boards
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
loyalty to the past. Examples include Fondazione CRT, Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
11
Click Here for More... from Arelis Diaz, program officer, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, on how the foundation’s charter serves as its “source code” today.
The distinctions above may be in the eye of the beholder and, in individual foundations, frequently evolve—yet there are meaningful differences in the scope of decision making at each point in the continuum, as foundations approach and use their charters differently. For those with living donors and/or heavily prescribed “donor-led” charters, all key decisions must be aligned with the charter; for those with flexible charters that are only loosely connected to a founder, a check of general principles will likely suffice. Foundations in the middle of this continuum will often have more flexibility to chart
practices known in Europe and around the world, and conversely to attract new design and economic resources from abroad. We have a courageous vision of philanthropy, which adds to the traditional and more recent granting approaches, including impact investing and venture philanthropy, to generate virtuous streams in terms of sustainability, impact, and results.” A foundation that seeks to increase its effectiveness in today’s changing environment is well served by taking the time to reflect on and discuss its charter—both among staff and with the board—to clarify constraints on decision making and potential points of organizational change. A clear and shared understanding of a foundation’s charter can help to ground its past decisions and results, lead to more effective and focused planning and external communication, and illuminate future directions.
their own course within a broader range of discretion, and the charter therefore serves as a guide to orient the
GrantCraft Connection
foundation’s direction.
Read how the Andrea & Charles Bronfman
At Fondazione CRT, secretary general Massimo Lapucci
Philanthropies’ decision to spend down intentionally
notes, “We have a clear charter: we are a foundation
gave the next generation of family philanthropists the
of banking origin whose purpose is the growth and
freedom to pursue their own visions and approaches
development of the territory, also in an international
to effect positive change.
dimension. We aim to make our excellence and best
Questions to Consider l
l
What is the story behind your foundation’s
l
If it has changed over time, how and why has
play today?
it changed?
What, if any, influence does the vision of your
l
When, how often, and why do your foundation’s current leaders look to the founders?
What are your foundation’s values, cultural norms, mores, and practices?
founding donor(s) have on the foundation today?
l
How was your foundation initially governed?
origin? How does that origin story come into
l
How do past and current norms influence what, where, and how you fund today?
What kind of charter does your foundation have: clear and explicit, or vague and ambiguous?
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
12
Social Compact A foundation’s social compact answers the question: To whom is a foundation accountable, and how is it making a difference with the special legal status it has been given?
A social compact is a foundation’s reciprocal agreement,
understanding and communicating meaningful results.
either implicit or explicit, with society and key
There is often a symbiotic relationship between a
stakeholders about the specific value it will create. A
foundation’s charter and its social compact. For example,
defining characteristic of most endowed foundations
a corporate foundation may define its social compact in
is the extraordinary freedom they have to define their
alignment with how its firm defines its customers, and a
own accountabilities, beyond baseline accountabilities to
family foundation may define its social compact in relation
regulators and boards. The social compact articulates
to its charter, prioritizing the family tree that connects
how a foundation defines its license to operate, the
to its founder.
value it creates, and the relationship it has with its stakeholders. It is the source of the foundation’s
Foundations with donor-led or stewarded charters may
legitimacy in the ethical sense.
be less likely to consider changes to their social compacts. Foundations with open charters have the flexibility to update or redefine their social compacts as needed; for
“One of the typical tensions we manage is how ‘political’ and visible the assertion of our own advocacy for mission should be, versus quietly supporting the grantees. On risk, my philosophy is that every foundation should try to do one thing each year that feels scary.” Robert Ross, The California Endowment
example, the Ford Foundation is currently reimagining its social compact with grantees. According to program officer Chris Cardona, “We are forging a different kind of social compact, based on systematic use of feedback loops: listening to grantees, reflecting, learning, changing resource allocations, and then sharing that back out with the field. This has gone hand in hand with a refined programmatic focus.” Foundations are institutions of both private action and public good. Governments routinely question the legitimacy of private foundation support to organizations and issues that may be at odds with their policies. When normative societal values and public policy objectives are debated in the United States and Europe, foundations are often pressured to demonstrate value and justify their unique legal status. A related challenge is the closing of civil society,
Social compact encompasses a foundation’s external
as perceived security threats and a declining respect for civil
accountabilities, relationship to society, and conception of
rights and the rule of law empower governments around
what it considers appropriate to do beyond the minimum
the world to restrict basic freedoms.
required by legal and regulatory frameworks. The cultural legacy of the foundation plays an important role in how the foundation sees itself. The social compact influences how the foundation defines beneficiaries and interacts with a broad range of stakeholders, including grantees, communities, the media, the philanthropic sector, and/or the general public, and its commitment to transparency— as well as the foundation’s overall approach to
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
GrantCraft Connection Does your foundation have glass pockets? Take this transparency assessment and use it as a road map to discuss and implement other transparency practices at your foundation.
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
13
In the midst of these challenges, foundations have
determined by the stakeholder communities’ threshold for
enormous freedom to define and defend their social
risk. For endowed foundations, such as the W.K. Kellogg
compacts. Robert Ross, president and chief executive officer
Foundation, risk is often considered in light of the founder’s
of The California Endowment, notes, “We are accountable
vision and appetite for change. As Diaz notes, “The issues
to the communities covered by our mission, primarily. Of
we focus on and our frameworks for action are still very
course, we have the IRS and attorney general to whom
much aligned to our founder’s original purpose.”
we are responsible as well. We believe in spending the reputational and political capital of the foundation in pursuit of key objectives, but we try to do this thoughtfully, selectively, surgically.” Embedded in all foundation social compacts, regardless of how they are defined, is an approach to risk: what type and level of risk is considered acceptable, or necessary? And, how will risk be defined and managed? Examination of a foundation’s social compact can provide important insight, particularly for foundations that struggle to define their approach to risk and articulate when and why they are willing to take risks.
“We are forging a different kind of social compact, based on systematic use of feedback loops: listening to grantees, reflecting, learning, changing resource allocations, and then sharing that back out with the field.” Chris Cardona, Ford Foundation
Foundations often wrestle with whether and how to engage in public discourse about and with the communities and programs they support—while at the same time many wish
A social compact commitment can also be defined
to project a neutral or ideology-free stance. Ross continues,
according to fundamental principles of transparency
“We have conversations among our executive team and
and community engagement, which for many funders
in our boardroom about the matter of risk on a pretty
are entwined. A foundation’s social compact informs its
regular basis. One of the typical tensions we manage is how
overall approach to transparency and the information it
‘political’ and visible the assertion of our own advocacy for
chooses to share, such as goals and strategies, grantmaking
mission should be, versus quietly supporting the grantees.
processes, lessons learned, and failures; it also influences
On risk, my philosophy is that every foundation should
the foundation’s approach to inclusion, mutual support,
try to do one thing each year that feels scary. Most of the
and collaboration. The Wikimedia Foundation’s director of
time, my team and I are pushing the board, but sometimes
resources, Katy Love, notes, “All funders should consider
the board pushes us about thinking differently. It’s a good
how they can involve the communities they’re attempting
healthy balance.” As this example illustrates, a clear social
to serve in their grantmaking and in all of their work.
compact commitment can help to orient all aspects of a
Participatory grantmaking is an important contribution
foundation’s work and frame important conversations
to philanthropic practice that can significantly strengthen
about resource allocation.
grantmaking results. For us, it is fundamental to everything we do and comes right out of our charter and social
Stonewall Community Foundation, a public foundation,
compact with our community of users.”
considers risk in the context of its social compact and a sense of mutual accountability with the LGBTQ community and its donors, notes Jarrett Lucas: “Public foundations organize communities—of donors, stakeholders groups,
GrantCraft Connection
grantees—which strengthens the work and, along the
Check out this blog post from RSF Social
way, helps to mitigate risk: we don’t get out in front of our
Finance and the Wikimedia Foundation on why every
donors and community members; we move together.” In
funder should consider participatory grantmaking.
this instance, the threshold for risk for the foundation is
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
14
Similarly, NoVo Foundation—a social justice-oriented
A foundation that seeks to sharpen its focus or broaden
family foundation with a deep commitment to addressing
its impact is well served by taking the time to understand
the structural barriers that perpetuate inequality—held a
and discuss its social compact. A clear and shared
year-long listening tour to engage and invite ideas from
understanding of its social compact can help a foundation
local communities on what is needed to advance the
to more effectively make decisions, prioritize and align
movement for girls and young women of color in the United
resources, and ensure its resources are impacting its
States. In these examples, both foundations are guided by
intended beneficiaries.
their social compacts to put community voice at the center of decision making.
GrantCraft Connection
Click Here to Hear More...
Read this blog post from the David Bohnett
on foundation transparency and accountability in
Foundation about how important it is for foundations
the U.S. and Europe from Rien van Gendt, board
to really immerse themselves in the communities
member of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (and
they serve.
former CEO of the Van Leer Group Foundations).
Questions to Consider l
A defining characteristic of most endowed
l
influence the communities it serves? To what
have to define their accountabilities, beyond
degree is the foundation influenced by the
baseline accountabilities to regulators and boards.
communities you serve? Why?
To whom is your foundation responsible? Who
l
are your top three stakeholders—inside the
l
A foundation’s social compact is the source of the foundation’s legitimacy in the ethical sense; this
foundation, and outside of the foundation? l
To what degree does your foundation seek to
foundations is the extraordinary freedom they
sense of legitimacy is often earned, or conferred
Are there certain principles to which your
by others. To what degree does your foundation
foundation feels accountable, such as
derive its sense of legitimacy from the private
founder legacy?
action of its donor? Government? Grantees? Public goodwill? Populations served? Nonprofit sector
What is your foundation’s approach to
writ large? Peer foundations?
transparency? What information does it make publicly available, and why? What does your social
l
Which does your foundation value more, and
compact suggest about what should
why: the freedom that foundations have to act
be shared, and with whom (such as goals,
independently, or the trust that the public confers
how grant decisions are made, lessons
on foundations, which may occasionally constrain
learned, failures)?
independence?
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
15
Operating Capabilities A foundation’s operating capabilities address the question: What must a foundation not just do or obtain, but excel at in order to achieve its mission? How can it best deploy resources to support its work in alignment with its charter and social compact? Operating capabilities are the dominant approaches
Wellness Foundation’s president and chief executive officer,
that guide how a foundation carries out its work and
Judy Belk, notes, “Most foundations are not the size of Ford
the core competencies, resources, skills, and processes
and Gates—so every ounce of human potential is critical.”
that it cultivates in order to achieve results. Culture plays a role here in how the foundation defines and
To optimize their overall performance to meet emerging
deploys its capabilities.
challenges and opportunities, many foundation leaders are taking a hard look at their organizations’ operating capabilities—and navigating a variety of tensions. These
“All foundations already do impact investing, but they’re not all structured in ways that allow them to understand if their impact is positive, or negative. You have to constantly push yourself to investigate what effect you are having.” Clara Miller, Heron Foundation
tensions fall across six critical dimensions, all of which are interrelated. Through the Theory of the Foundation initiative’s inquiry process, foundation leaders identified the following key operating capabilities that inform how they carry out their work: decision making, resourcing, flexibility, initiative, programming, and relationships. How a foundation approaches each of these capabilities may be considered as a point along a spectrum, as illustrated on p.17. The spectra illustrate the underlying dynamics of how work is actually done in a foundation. Although there is no “right” place to be on any of these spectra, an individual foundation’s choices have important implications for its operations and organizational culture. For example, a centralized approach may lead to more coordinated investment; a broad approach may lead to more intentional learning across fields. Shifting a foundation’s position along
Some foundations can easily group their programs into
these spectra is often a matter of culture change, requiring
a handful of broad issue areas, such as the environment
intensive and intentional work.
or education—but are less clear about the operating capabilities that inform how they carry out their work within a program or across the foundation as a whole, such as their approach to resourcing and building relationships. These foundations may struggle to develop and manage capabilities, or end up heavily weighted in certain capabilities and woefully under-resourced in others.
GrantCraft Connection Use GrantCraft’s guide Supporting Grantee Capacity to discuss your foundation’s approach to supporting grantees. How does your approach reflect where your foundation sits on the spectrum of each of the six operating capabilities identified in
Whatever their life-cycle stage or size, all foundations try
this chapter?
to balance their missions and resources. The California
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
16
What’s Your Operating Capabilities Approach? Decision Making CENTRALIZED
How and where decisions are made and, as a result, how much variability or consistency exists within the foundation
DECENTRALIZED
Resourcing BUILD
How the foundation resources its work, including indirect time allocated to support key programmatic goals beyond grantmaking
BUY
Flexibility CREATIVE
RESPONSIVE
BROAD
INDEPENDENT
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
How the foundation implements its work and the amount of latitude the staff has in interpreting core strategy
Initiative How the foundation sees its role at the highest level
Programming How the foundation tackles its areas of focus
Relationships How the foundation sees its role and interacts with peer funders
DISCIPLINED
PROACTIVE
DEEP
NETWORKED
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
17
Key Operating Capabilities DECISION MAKING Decentralized Centralized This refers to how and where decisions are made and, as a result, how much variability or consistency exists within the foundation. Do the foundation’s programs operate independently? Or are key program strategy and design decisions made centrally, with each program taking on an implementation role? How much latitude do individual program officers have? How much effort goes into
(building internal capability)? Do these patterns hold true across all program areas (which might place it farther at one end of the spectrum), or do they vary across programs (placing it closer to the middle)? At the Heron Foundation, president Clara Miller examined current operating capabilities and then took steps to evolve them toward the build end of this spectrum. “We decided that we needed to do more than just conduct financial
integration across program areas or functions?
transactions,” she notes. “We also needed to leverage these
At the Ford Foundation, notes Cardona, where and how
building and helping others to make deals. So we’ve moved
decisions are made is changing. “Research, strategy, and decision making at the foundation traditionally rested at the level of the individual program officer. We operated on a bit of an academic model; as in a university, program officers came in with a specific discipline, and were hired because they had a research agenda to pursue and were then authorized to go forth and pursue it. Over the last eight years, the foundation has been gradually moving away from that. We condensed the overall number of lines of work; now, we are further refining our focus, and enabling more coordination across the foundation to integrate regional offices and to engage directors across the foundation in tackling inequality. This all requires different capabilities in our program directors and officers; directors previously had grantmaking responsibilities, but today are much more focused on strategy and management.” A shift in decision-making approach can necessitate a shift in staff competencies—in this case, from direct grantmaking to strategy and management.
RESOURCING Buy Build This refers to how the foundation resources its work, including indirect time allocated to support key programmatic goals beyond grantmaking. Does the foundation build out its internal operations deeply, does it share back-office or other critical functions with other foundations, or does it buy outside expertise? To what extent does the foundation act as grantmaker and/or investor (buying external expertise) compared to operating programs or carrying out work through its own staff
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
transactions by being out in the investment community, by beyond thinking of transactional relationships with grantees as the prime influence—we now put other voices to our work, not as a broadcast, but as a community. ” A shift in resourcing approach—in this case, to leverage financial transactions by building internal capacity—can have ripple effects on internal and external relationships.
FLEXIBILITY Disciplined Creative This refers to how the foundation implements its work, and to the amount of latitude staff have in interpreting core strategy. Though a strategic plan or set of issue priorities may be developed collaboratively across an entire foundation or handed down from senior leadership, implementation of these plans or priorities often lies with individual program staff. What latitude does staff have for interpreting the core strategy or issue priorities? Are they encouraged to be creative and adaptive as they develop their grantmaking and other program activities, or does the foundation tend toward a disciplined and strict adherence to a central or shared plan of action? Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen of Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen Foundation notes, “Philanthropy is a bridge between personal values and passions, resources and community needs, and welfare and enhancement. It is both art and science. We must account for the strengths and scale of institutional philanthropy, as well as the personal motivations and desires that drive the founders, leadership, and staff.” For this foundation, striking a balance between creative and disciplined approaches is paramount.
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
18
INITIATIVE Proactive Responsive This refers to how the foundation sees its role as a change maker in society. Does it take a responsive approach, supporting goals and initiatives defined by leaders in their field or community, or does the foundation see itself as the creator of solutions, designing its own goals and initiatives? Does the foundation respond to efforts emerging from the field, or does it instead develop its own theory of change? Foundations may find themselves between the two ends of this spectrum. For example, some may have a generally responsive grantmaking strategy, but certain initiatives are proactive; others may develop their theory of change or overall strategy in a more responsive or collaborative approach with nonprofit leaders but implement this work in a more proactive manner through key initiatives that they
the big foundations are conglomerates with various goals. What’s most important is the internal self-discipline of being clear about goals, and being willing to monitor how they are doing in achieving those goals. Most foundations, even many of the big ones, don’t impose that degree of selfdiscipline on themselves.” A single foundation may have several programs that fall along different places on the programming spectrum.
RELATIONSHIPS Networked Independent This refers to how the foundation sees its role and interacts with peer funders or other potential partners, including the public and private sectors. Does the foundation tend to take solitary or unilateral action, which is often described as exhibiting leadership, risk taking, accountability, and
design themselves.
ownership of an issue? Or does the foundation tend to
At The California Endowment, which develops and
collaboration, and even co-creation, seeking leverage and a
deploys its own theory of change and is at the proactive end of this spectrum, Robert Ross observes, “I don’t understand the recent wave of aversion and critique of ‘strategic philanthropy’; how does one gauge progress towards mission without a base strategy or theory of change and some key measures for tracking purposes?” In alignment with this approach, the foundation does not accept unsolicited letters of intent or proposals; funding opportunities are by invitation only, to organizations the foundation identifies as a potential match with its theory of change.
take a networked approach with a focus on co-funding, larger sphere of influence and impact? William and Flora Hewlett Foundation president Larry Kramer, reflecting on the foundation’s collaborative, networked approach, notes, “However much progress we can realistically expect to make, we’ll do more of it working together with other foundations than working alone. This level of collaboration does require changes at the operational level—big changes. You cannot simply sit back, develop your own strategy, get board approval to proceed in a particular way, and then go and find someone to collaborate with.” At Hewlett, respect, consultation, and
PROGRAMMING Deep Broad This refers to how the foundation tackles its areas of focus. Does the foundation favor having well-defined programs with clear boundaries, or does it define its role in terms of a broad social change agenda with greater variety among the groups it supports? Does it see its signal achievements as having been in highly specific areas with these triumphs having ripple effects that reach the systems level, or from “big bet” or field-building grantmaking that has seeded an
collaboration with others in the field have been identified as essential to their outcome-focused philanthropy approach—internally, among cross-functional staff teams, and externally. A foundation that takes a networked approach is likely to actively seek out opportunities to co-create strategy and programming. Foundations that share a networked approach often collaborate with one another as a network. For example, the Ford, John S. and James L. Knight, John D. and Catherine
approach, movement, or strategy for change?
T. MacArthur, Mozilla, and Open Society foundations came
Paul Brest, faculty co-director of the Stanford Center on
them to collectively identify and seed interventions and
Philanthropy and Civil Society and former president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, notes, “Many of
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
together to launch NetGain, a partnership that enabled investment opportunities for their own foundations and to share those insights with the field.
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
19
Taken together, these operating capabilities represent
operating model: we have X number of programs and X
a dynamic set of traits that interact frequently with one
number of program officers, so we chop up the program
another and may, over time, shift in direction or dominance.
budgets in a specific way and then land on ‘we can make
Finding the right point of balance is a significant and
X number of grants.’ Instead, at Heron we began to ask
ongoing challenge for foundation leaders. Shifts along
what level of investment is needed to make a difference
these spectra often require them to scout new staff, invest
here? And it became clear pretty quickly that a different
in professional development for current staff, engage their
set of capabilities was needed.” Conversely, a strong set
boards in dialogue to evaluate their operating models in
of operating capabilities may exert an outsize influence
relation to the foundation’s charter and social compact, and
on the other elements of a foundation’s theory—leading
ensure alignment.
a foundation to inadvertently remain stuck in its current capabilities or to prioritize them over its social compact or
For example, a foundation’s board of trustees may
charter. As Ford Foundation president Darren Walker notes,
empower a new foundation CEO to move in a new
“Foundations have to interrogate their own behaviors,
direction but may meet resistance given the foundation’s
practices, and policy. This is not something that can be
dominant set of operating capabilities—requiring a
taken on superficially. It needs to be taken on seriously.
major reorientation of those capabilities. As the Heron
You need to do an honest self-assessment that can be
Foundation’s Clara Miller has observed, “Decision making
very painful; has implications for talent, organization, and
in foundations can sometimes be a function of the
priorities; and can be very disruptive.” The Theory of the Foundation framework can help foundations to ground their self-assessments in their distinct elements—charter,
GrantCraft Connection Further reflect on your foundation’s
social compact, operating capabilities—and facilitate deeper understanding of how they align and manifest at the operating level.
operating capabilities with GrantCraft’s “Roles@Work,” deck, which drills down into 29 roles funders
A foundation that seeks to strengthen its work should
commonly play—such as analyst, bridge builder,
take the time to understand its operating capabilities and
convener, idea mover—and offers insight on how to
how they constrain or enhance the foundation’s overall
strengthen them.
effectiveness, and explore opportunities to rebalance their overall approach.
Questions to Consider l
l
What capabilities are distinctive at your
Do you think your grantees and other
foundation? What are your special strengths
stakeholders understand your operating
and what are some areas to be developed?
capabilities? How does this level of understanding inform your interactions?
Are your capabilities consistent across the whole foundation, or does each program bring
l
l
l
Are there capabilities that are core to your work
a distinct set (for instance, reactive for arts but
that aren’t addressed in this chapter? What are
proactive for community development)?
they, and how might they connect with others?
How well does your foundation “walk the
l
If your foundation was in start-up mode today,
talk” —are any of the foundation’s stated
which capabilities do you think would be most
capabilities more aspirational than others?
important to design in—and which could be spun off or discarded?
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
20
Takeaways for Funders Foundation leaders today are looking for better ways to lead their organizations through change. As they adapt to meet emerging challenges and new opportunities, evaluating where they’ve been will provide insight on what they will need for the journey ahead. The Theory of the Foundation provides a useful
A foundation’s theory of itself sits at the center of its
framework—charter, social compact, and operating
strategic intent: What will the foundation do, and not do—
capabilities—to help funders navigate through change
and why?
and more effectively align resources within and across foundations. It brings critical areas of practice, so often
In practice, a foundation’s theory or core framework—
left in the shade, more fully into the light. Robert Rosen,
its charter, social compact, and operating capabilities—
director of philanthropic partnerships at the Bill &
come together to inform an overall operating model.
Melinda Gates Foundation, observes, “It’s tough enough
Operating models are the organizational structures inside
to collaborate: know thyself before trying to know others.”
a foundation that enable it to reliably and consistently
The framework enables foundations to do just that; to
deliver the combination of capabilities needed to support
get to know themselves better and, by using a common
its chosen approach or strategy. Operating models define
framework, to more effectively connect with others.
where critical work happens in an organization and therefore how resources should be deployed in order to support that work—and ensure that people inside the
“It’s tough enough to collaborate: know thyself before trying to know others.” Robert Rosen, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
foundation are aligned around a common understanding. This common understanding is key to a foundation’s culture and is a powerful motivator and enabler of essential behaviors. Operating models also reveal fundamental differences in how foundations view what’s important, where and how they can add value, and, ultimately, how they achieve
Tapping more deeply into a foundation’s charter, social
impact. Several distinct operating models that illustrate
compact, and operating capabilities will benefit not only the
these differences are emerging from RPA’s research, such
foundation but its partners, stakeholders, and communities
as talent agency (select, strengthen, and promote change
too. At the Tecovas Foundation, consideration of this
agents closest to the issue), think tank (apply expertise
framework has helped to highlight how conceptions of this small family foundation’s social compact evolved over time. The foundation’s executive director and vice chair, Mary Galeti, notes, “The origin of our family foundation is rooted
Action Step
in our family business. The foundation was envisioned as a
Take 15 minutes to catalog the ways you see your
mechanism by which we, as a family, could practice working
foundation’s charter, social compact, and operating
together in low-risk contexts. Today, we have dramatically
capabilities in action—at the program and foundation
changed our orientation. We recognize that the work of our foundation isn’t actually about us, and we are exploring where our charter and capabilities meet our social
levels. What surprises you? What inspires you? What is your foundation really good at? What opportunities do you see for strengthening your foundation’s work?
compact, to better define and address multiple levels of accountability—to our family, to our grantees, to our community stakeholders, and to the field of philanthropy itself.”
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
21
to design solutions, find implementers), field builder (grow organizations and movements to a point at which they could have a major impact), and campaign manager (use institutional power to get a policy/solution adopted broadly). Though foundations are rarely wholly and completely a “single model,” they do tend to lean toward one model while also incorporating traits of others. When it is well executed, the foundation’s operating model becomes a hallmark or defining characteristic of its approach,
Action Step Identify colleagues in other foundations who are interested in discussing your respective foundations’ theories and operating models. Consider how they constrain or support your effectiveness individually, and collectively in partnership with others. What points of convergence and divergence do you see?
translating the core framework into practical application. For example, the New York State Health Foundation
Lisa Hamilton, the foundation’s vice president, notes, “We
illustrates aspects of the campaign manager model.
are committed to sharing effective solutions. So when we
President and Chief Executive Officer David Sandman notes,
figure out something works, we think it’s really important
“We are a health-conversion foundation whose mission
to broadly disseminate those solutions so that others can
is to improve the health of all New Yorkers. When people
take action too—and together, we can move the needle in a
tell me, ‘I thought the foundation was much bigger than
positive direction. To that end, we have invested in building
it is!’ it always feels like a huge compliment. We strive
and strengthening the KIDS COUNT network of advocates
to be more than grantmakers—we are change makers.
in each state as a platform for sharing good policy ideas.”
Access to decision makers is a key strategy for us, so our
In this example, the foundation’s independent, proactive
communications and outreach are critical. I write a regular
capabilities enable it to strengthen the field of child
blog, and a senator in New York recently called me and
advocacy just as its charter and social compact are rooted in
said ‘I just read your blog, and thought: we need to talk!’ We
the experiences of the founder’s mother—a widow whose
ended up in an hour-long meeting with her and her staff.
struggle and sacrifice now serve as an enduring legacy for
That is impact: We didn’t make a grant; instead, our in-
children and families.
house capabilities enabled our access to decision makers.” The New York State Health Foundation’s charter, social
The Wikimedia Foundation illustrates aspects of the field-
compact, and capabilities come together in its campaign
builder model as well, as it pioneers and promulgates
manager operating model: the foundation proactively
participatory grantmaking approaches at the program,
builds its own communications and convening capacity to
foundation, and sector levels. To facilitate engagement and
improve health policy and spread effective programs and,
foster transparency at every stage, the foundation’s entire
ultimately, improve the health of all New Yorkers.
grantmaking process is conducted publicly online—from proposal intake and feedback on strengths and weaknesses
The Annie E. Casey Foundation illustrates aspects of
to funding decisions.
the field-builder model, for example, through its KIDS COUNT Network—a group of child advocacy and research organizations representing every state and using data to promote smart policies on a range of childhood issues.
Click Here to Learn More... from Katy Love, director of resources, Wikimedia Foundation, about how the foundation operationalizes its charter, social compact, and operating capabilities.
Action Step Translate your foundation’s theory into an actionable model. Download and complete the “philanthropy canvas” worksheet at the end of this paper, to help you map current operating models—at the program or foundation level—or develop new models.
As the examples above demonstrate, foundations may deploy distinct operating models at the whole foundation and individual program levels. At times, a foundation may have multiple operating models at work within a single program area, given external constraints, opportunities, or the varying needs of the field or system
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
22
it seeks to influence. (A fuller publication on the topic of
distinctions and commonalities among foundations, and
operating models is in development and will be available at
to provide a useful framework for the sector as a whole
rockpa.org/expertise/theory-of-the-foundation.)
to reflect, align resources, and achieve greater impact.
The Theory of the Foundation framework is designed to
With this framework as a guide, reflection can spark
help funders analyze and reflect on the critical elements
insights, enable dialogue about strategic intent, and
that underpin a foundation’s operating model: charter,
help to build greater alignment—so that funders of all
social compact, and operating capabilities.
kinds will be better positioned to achieve the results they
Click Here to Learn More...
seek, together.
from Jarrett Lucas, executive director, Stonewall Community Foundation, who discusses the value
Action Step
of regular institutional introspection and how the
Share this GrantCraft paper with your foundation’s
Theory of the Foundation can be adapted for use
trustees and staff, and then host a brown-bag
by a community foundation.
conversation inside your foundation about how your foundation’s theory has shaped its development as an
Whether used individually or in concert with others, the
organization over time.
Theory of the Foundation can help funders to create a shared vocabulary for reflection, to illuminate important
Questions to Consider l
How can you apply the Theory of the
organizational life cycle had on your foundation’s
foundation? How might a conversation about
operating model?
capabilities play out during a senior staff meeting or board retreat?
l
What influence, if any, has your foundation’s
Foundation framework to your own your charter, social compact, and operating
l
l
l
When you look out across the field of philanthropy, are there certain new or emerging operating models that strike you as intriguing?
How would you describe your foundation’s
How and why? What elements do you think might
overall operating model (whether or not one
“fit” within your foundation’s operating model—
has been explicitly articulated)?
and which would not?
Does your foundation manifest more than one operating model? Do different programs have different models?
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
23
TRANSLATE YOUR FOUNDATION FRAMEWORK INTO AN ACTIONABLE MODEL
Philanthropy Canvas A foundation’s framework (charter, social compact, and operating capabilities) sits at the center of its strategic intent: What will the foundation do, and not do—and why?
Once a foundation has clarified its Theory of the
conditions; it brings into focus the full landscape of
Foundation, it is ready to translate that framework into
relationships, constraints, and opportunities.
an actionable model. Use the philanthropy canvas at the program or foundationTo help with that process, RPA created a tool called the
wide level, or both—to help you map current operating
“philanthropy canvas,” a variant of the business model
models or develop new ones. For more guidance on
canvas created by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves
how to use such a canvas tool for strategic planning and
Pigneur. This canvas invites foundation staff, trustees,
organizational assessment, visit: rockpa.org/expertise/
and other key stakeholders to map out the elements of a
theory-of-the-foundation.
1
foundation’s broader strategy and activities in relationship to both its core framework, which lies at the heart of the
To begin, consider the framing question and items in each
organization, and the external environment that it seeks to
box of the canvas on the following page, as well as the
influence and is in turn influenced by.
most important elements of the outside world described in the four areas surrounding the canvas. Invite members
With the philanthropy canvas, foundations can map
of your foundation’s leadership to offer their suggestions
the relationships among a foundation’s core drivers
for how they would fill out each box on the canvas for
and articulate the foundation’s strategic intent. The
your foundation and then facilitate a conversation with
philanthropy canvas situates a foundation’s framework
colleagues and/or peers in other foundations to reflect on
(charter, social compact, capabilities) at the center, and
these initial suggestions to begin your reflections.
moves out to encompass partners, resources, and external
1. For more, see: Alexander Osterwalder, Yves Pigneur, Tim Clark, and Alan Smith, Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2010).
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
24
Philanthropy Canvas Worksheet STATE OF THE WORLD/ISSUE Problem environment that you are trying to change
Where is the change?
Who will help you?
People, species, organizations, and/or places
Co-creators, co-funders, and supporters
How do you do it?
How do you interact?
Key activities
Relationships
REGULATORY & POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
ACTOR LANDSCAPE
What do you do and why? Charter, social compact, and capabilities
The funders, nonprofits, and other players working on the issue you care about
Legal and cultural policy limitations that define the range of possible actions
What do you need? Key resources
How do you distribute or disseminate? Channels
What will it cost?
How will you fund it?
Budget & opportunity costs
Capital, income, and/or co-funders
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS Financial resources available, internally and across the field
GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
25
ABOUT FOUNDATION CENTER Established in 1956, Foundation Center is the leading source of information about philanthropy worldwide. Through data, analysis, and training, it connects people who want to change the world to the resources they need to succeed. Foundation Center maintains the most comprehensive database on U.S. and, increasingly, global grantmakers and their grants — a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector. It also operates research, education, and training programs designed to advance knowledge of philanthropy at every level. Thousands of people visit Foundation Center’s website each day and are served in its five regional hubs and its network of more than 400 funding information centers located in public libraries, community foundations, and educational institutions nationwide and around the world. For more information, please visit foundationcenter.org, call (212) 620-4230, or tweet us at @fdncenter.
ABOUT ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) is a nonprofit that partners with individuals, families, and institutions to help make philanthropy more thoughtful and effective. Since 2002, we have facilitated more than $3 billion in grantmaking worldwide, establishing ourselves as one of the world’s largest and most trusted philanthropic service organizations. We advise established and aspiring philanthropists, foundations, and corporations; manage innovative, early-stage nonprofits; and share insight and learning with our clients, our community, and the sector. By continuing to build on lessons learned over more than a century, our goal is to help define the next generation of philanthropy and to foster a worldwide culture of giving. For more information, visit us at rockpa.org.
THEORY OF THE FOUNDATION FUNDERS Since its launch in 2014, dozens of foundations have contributed to the development of the Theory of the Foundation as funders of and participants in this research in the United States and Europe. We thank the following funders for their support and participation, along with almost 40 additional foundations that have shared their insights and reflections for specific Theory of the Foundation research efforts. • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation • The Andrea & Charles Bronfman Philanthropies • The Annie E. Casey Foundation • Arcadia Charitable Trust • Arcus Foundation • Barr Foundation • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • The California Wellness Foundation • Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation • Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family • Conrad N. Hilton Foundation • The David & Lucile Packard Foundation • Episcopal Health Foundation • Esmée Fairbairn Foundation • Fondazione CRT • Ford Foundation • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation • Heron Foundation • Houston Endowment • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation • The Kresge Foundation
• Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland • Lumina Foundation • Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies • Nathan Cummings Foundation • Newman’s Own Foundation • Oak Foundation • Porticus • Rasmuson Foundation • Robert Bosch Stiftung • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation • Rockefeller Brothers Fund • The Rockefeller Foundation • S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation • Simons Foundation • Stavros Niarchos Foundation • Surdna Foundation • TIAA Institute • The Wallace Foundation • Wellcome Trust • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
In addition to leaders from many of the funders of the Theory of the Foundation initiative, we thank the following people specifically for generously sharing their experience and insight, which informed this GrantCraft paper: • Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen Foundation
• Larry Kramer, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
• Judy Belk, The California Wellness Foundation
• Katy Love, Wikimedia Foundation
• Paul Brest, Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
• Jarrett Lucas, Stonewall Community Foundation
• Chris Cardona, Ford Foundation
• Massimo Lapucci, Fondazione CRT
• Arelis Diaz, W.K. Kellogg Foundation
• Clara Miller, Heron Foundation
• Bob Forrester, Newman’s Own Foundation
• Will Miller, The Wallace Foundation
• Mary Galeti, Tecovas Foundation
• Robert Rosen, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Rien van Gendt, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (Board Member)
• Robert Ross, The California Endowment
• Lisa Hamilton, The Annie E. Casey Foundation
• David Sandman, New York State Health Foundation
• Diane Kaplan, Rasmuson Foundation
• Darren Walker, Ford Foundation
For additional guides and other materials in the GrantCraft series, visit grantcraft.org.